Cockpit exposure.

[mSparks 2,094]

3 hours ago, Humpty said:

Wow 18 pages of discussing the dark 😛

 

All other questions had been answered, and until this last question was answered also, AC might not release his consciousness.     All collected data had come to a final end. Nothing was left to be collected.     But all collected data had yet to be completely correlated and put together in all possible relationships.     

A timeless interval was spent in doing that.     

And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy.     

But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.     For another timeless interval, AC thought how best to do this. Carefully, AC organized the program.     The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.     

And AC said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"     

And there was light --

[MrBitstFlyer 3,896]

6 hours ago, efis007 said:

So... since we've established beyond any doubt that XP12 is imitating a camera autoexposure and not the human eye... it's distorting reality, it's an unrealistic simulator.

To try and sum up.
1.  Detail everywhere in the scene is desired.
2.  Maintaining the highest contrast in the scene is desired.

If either of the above is not met, some XP12 users will remain unhappy.

Problems...
1.  We are not viewing the world through real eyes, therefore have limited dynamic range to display.
2.  No PC monitor is capable of display real world brightness/contrast levels.
3.  Real world brighness levels need to be simulated as close as possible to maintain realism in the scene.
4.  Real world detail levels need to be simulated as close as possible to maintain realism.

Solutions...
1.  Initially seperate the scene into light/dark areas. This will enable more brightness levels in each part of the scene by utilizing a technique like eye adaption.
2.  Use tonemapping to further refine the detail levels, while not negativley affecting contrast much, if at all.
3.  Use a head tracker for 2D or use VR, to greatly reduce the effect of eye adaption by always pointing the simulated head at the focal point, thus greatly helping eye adaption to maintain the highest possible brightness/contrast.

@Biology has given a good technical description how tonemapping may not affect contrast as much as I initially thought, but I do firmly believe an eye adaption technique needs to be used alongside tonemapping for the greatest dynamic range.  I am at one end of the 'realism spectrum' to put dynamic range at the top of the list of wants for realism in a flight simulator.. Those at the other end of the realism spectrum, to maximise detail in every part of the scene,  should also realise they may very well need to compromise a little for the overall user benefit.

 

[tonywob 4,770]

4 hours ago, Humpty said:

Wow 18 pages of discussing the dark 😛

 

I simply find it impressive how far and detailed people will go to prove their point :-)

[Murmur 3,957]

Yeah, I think it comes down to a different idea of realism each side has.

As I understand it, some form of autoexposure can still be used even with a revised local tonemapper, so maybe everyone will be happy.

[brinx 276]

4 hours ago, Humpty said:

Wow 18 pages of discussing the dark 😛

Can't see an end in sight, I guess.

need some light at the end of the tunnel. 😁

pun intended.

[mSparks 2,094]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

I think it comes down to a different idea of realism each side has.

There seems to be fundamentally two very different opinions, one side thinks this is a far to dark with to much contrast and wants to light it up with a 6000 Watt light bulb so they can see it properly

The other thinks it is just stunning and lovely and would prefer the other side just stops taking whatever the drugs are that is giving them Miosis rather than somehow get Laminar to "fix" it 🤷‍♀️

Edited March 17, 2023 by mSparks

[Murmur 3,957]

10 minutes ago, mSparks said:

There seems to be fundamentally two very different opinions, one side thinks this is a far to dark with to much contrast and wants to light it up with a 6000 Watt light bulb so they can see it properly

The other thinks it is just stunning and lovely and would prefer the other side just stops taking whatever the drugs are that is giving them Miosis rather than somehow get Laminar to "fix" it 🤷‍♀️

No 6000W light bulbs, just a localized tonemapper. More perceptually realistic for a portion of users.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Murmur

[mSparks 2,094]

8 minutes ago, Murmur said:

for a portion of users.

The same users who think it looks identical to XP11 and/or think a tone mapper can add entropy where there is currently pure white out of the window?

[Murmur 3,957]

3 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The same users who think it looks identical to XP11 and/or think a tone mapper can add entropy where there is currently pure white out of the window?

No, different users. For example, I disagree with many things written by efis007, e.g. the comparison with XP11 lighting engine.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Murmur

[efis007 899]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

No, different users. For example, I disagree with many things written by efis007, e.g. the comparison with XP11 lighting engine.

As far as I can remember I have never compared the XP12 lighting engine to the XP11 lighting engine.
If anything I said that - regardless of the lighting engine used - both simulators generate dark panel bugs, and this is an established fact, there are photographs everywhere showing dark panels generated by XP11, but even more by XP12.
They have just presented the new Toliss A320, beautiful aircraft, there are videos on youtube, and in all the videos you can see the dark panel bug generated by XP12 which also affects (sigh) the new Toliss.
So what's the point of saying "I agree with user X and I disagree with user Y"?
After a mountain of irrefutable evidence of the existence of the dark panel bug there is no longer any logic to take one side or the other.
That bug exists.
Since the bug exists, let's all be aware of it, and ask Laminar to solve it for the successful sale of their product.
However I like to discuss things, what would be the points where you disagree with efis007?

Edited March 18, 2023 by efis007

[mSparks 2,094]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

No, different users

they are the same users, they want to remove the look based exposure and turn the cockpit back into how it was lit in XP11:

Edited March 17, 2023 by mSparks

[Murmur 3,957]

8 minutes ago, mSparks said:

they are the same users, they want to remove the look based exposure and turn the cockpit back into how it was lit in XP11:

I'm content with a local tonemapper, and I reckon that's what we'll get (as LR originally intended: according to @Biology, if their first iteration of the local tonemapper wouldn't have been buggy, we would have never seen those dark cockpits).

Edited March 17, 2023 by Murmur

[mSparks 2,094]

10 minutes ago, Murmur said:

tonemapper wouldn't have been buggy, we would have never seen those dark cockpits

Somewhere there is a picture with Janov with a light meter in what I think was a 744 cockpit iirc.

The cockpits get dark because they are only slightly brighter than a broom cupboard with no windows the door closed and the light off. They are specifically designed to keep the light out as much as possible so the CRT/LCD displays are always visible and readable.

It is this that is fundamentally being objected to by those not OK with it at the moment, even Faruk evaded the look based exposure question because he fundamentally wants the same thing - cockpit lit by a 6000W bulb that is bright against the outside.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by mSparks

[efis007 899]

2 hours ago, brinx said:

Can't see an end in sight, I guess.

need some light at the end of the tunnel. 😁

pun intended.

😄😄

[Murmur 3,957]

42 minutes ago, efis007 said:

However I like to discuss things, what would be the points where you disagree with efis007?

E.g. that the cause of the issue is cockpit shadows. But I'll leave at that, we'll agree to disagree, since I think at this point further discussion on the issue is useless.